To be honest I'm actually going to be very dissapointed if this isn't a hyper with some decent length. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Hershey and enjoy their coaster collection, but they desperately need something longer than 3400'(Length of LR, which is the longest in the park). Also, I'm very surprised on how many people would prefer a B&M over an Intamin. I mean I do understand the reliablity difference between the two companies, but the ride experience is much more thrilling with Intamin.(Better airtime and way more out of control). With B&M you get a more comfortable seat, but they feel soooooo IN control. Not that I would mind a B&M, but would prefer an Intamin. I am just hoping regardless of the manufacturers, it's a stereotypical hyper with airtime hills and not a shortened version with an abundance of twists and turns, because Hershey is loaded with medium length "twisty" coasters. A nice, long out & back loaded with airtime hills would complement their collection perfectly.

B&M has a 4per row layout over Intamin's usual 2 per row. So that means more people can ride at a time and can move up the line more quickly using less trains. As much as I did enjoy I-305 at KD, it was disappointing when I had to 'brace myself' for the 2nd half of the ride due to the uncomfortable otsr 'chopping' at my neck. Also disappointed at how they have to add trims to the drop due to the wheels maybe wearing out. So I think B&M is the safe choice due to reliability and less of a maintanence headache.

> To be honest I'm actually going to be very dissapointed if
> this isn't a hyper with some decent length. Don't get me
> wrong, I absolutely love Hershey and enjoy their coaster
> collection, but they desperately need something longer than
> 3400'(Length of LR, which is the longest in the park).
> Also, I'm very surprised on how many people would prefer a
> B&M over an Intamin. I mean I do understand the reliablity
> difference between the two companies, but the ride
> experience is much more thrilling with Intamin.(Better
> airtime and way more out of control). With B&M you get a
> more comfortable seat, but they feel soooooo IN control.
> Not that I would mind a B&M, but would prefer an Intamin. I
> am just hoping regardless of the manufacturers, it's a
> stereotypical hyper with airtime hills and not a shortened
> version with an abundance of twists and turns, because
> Hershey is loaded with medium length "twisty"
> coasters. A nice, long out & back loaded with airtime
> hills would complement their collection perfectly.
> * This Post Has Been Modified *

I nprefer B&M because the rides they make are better. I just got back from KD and rode I-305 and it was such a letdown, I was expecting a monster of a drop but instead we were braked at the midpoint of going down....why would you want to ruin the best part of a ride?

I also like the B&M hyper seats, to me the clamshell restraint is the best in the industry. I also leave the "out of control" feeling to the wood roller coasters, not the steel.

Though I've been saying for many many years that Hershey was in need of a hypercoaster, and while I am thrilled to see that that may finally be coming to fruition, count me among those that have reservations about how good this ride will be.

I've stated on this board many times that Hershey, with their steel coasters, has come up short with their last three installations.

Great Bear started out great, but it's lame ending left a sour taste in my mouth.

Storm Runner, again, started out great, but it's lame ending left me uninspired, and it's capacity is pretty low for such a big coaster.

Fahrenheit, while certainly a more complete ride, and the best of the three in my opinion, has a number of short-comings, including the small trains, and poor capacity as well.

After originally reading that Hersheypark was asking for a height variance in the 200-350 ft range, reading now that the new ride, if it is a coaster, will be 212 feet tall, is a bit disappointing. I wish it was more in the 250 foot range - something that would make heads turn from all over and would be very marketable.

The township-imposed restriction was originally 200 feet, but that restriction dates back to when the airport was open across the street from the park. Hersheypark received a variance for the 330 foot Kissing Tower, why only 212 feet this time?

Look at the surrounding hypercoasters' drops. This ride comes in 3rd in height, and let's only hope that the drop is more than 200 feet.

I know, maybe I'm judging too quickly. And I would be very happy to see a hypercoaster come to Hersheypark. But Hershey has set a precedent for sacrificing the ride experience to save some money on their past three steel coasters.

They have an opportunity here to make a mark on the industry and build something special - like they did with Lightning Racer. I just hope they actually do it with a steel coaster.

Count me in with Franchise too. This ride needs to be a long out and back, like 5000+ feet long. I want to see 3 trains this time too, capable of holding 30-36 riders. Intamin or B&M, it doesn't matter to me. If I was a betting man, I would put my money on Intamin, meaning Hershey probably signed a multiple coaster package deal with them.

I find it amusing that Hershey stated that they want to bring people back over to Comet Hollow and re-balance the park. Good luck with that. (Maybe they shouldn't have built the waterpark inside the park in the first place!).

Last thing. The 2012 part seems odd to me. No where has Hershey said they are building the ride in 2012, they're just calling it 'Attraction 2012'. They could be misleading everyone on purpose. It wouldn't be the first time they were misleading prior to an announcement.

It sounds as if an announcement is coming sooner than later. Why announce a 2012 ride soon? Do they expect everyone to get excited over a 200 foot coaster - one that's smaller than others in the area - that's pretty much two years away?

Having been up there recently, there are markings all over the place. Why so many markings now for a ride that isn't coming for another 20 months? We shall see, but I'm crossing my fingers for next year.

It also makes sense that they made a deal with intamin, but if my hunch is correct, yes it's just a hunch, they could create something like Goliath at Walibi World that is only 151ft, so they could make a bigger version, something with those crazy turns.

Now all of this is just guessing as we are only givin a height they are asking for but WHAT IF they go with a divining coaster?

Sheikra lists at 200' and Griffon at 205' so if they don't have to go with IAG they could build something like that with the requested height.

It also doesn't make sense they are pushing this so hard for 2012, it is still far away, and good point about the tower they built that is 300+ ft.

> they could
> create something like Goliath at Walibi World that is only
> 151ft, so they could make a bigger version, something with
> those crazy turns.

They could, but I'd rather see a long out & back with a ton of air. It's already been said here, but Herhsy has its fill of twisting coasters.

> Now all of this is just guessing as we are only givin a
> height they are asking for but WHAT IF they go with a
> divining coaster?

I hadn't thought about a diving coaster. It would be a welcomed addition, and at 212 feet it would be the world's tallest. But that too would be short (length) ride, and not fill the hypercoaster void the park currently has. Plus, they already have Fahrenheit which 'dives' at 97 degrees.

Perhaps 'Attraction 2012" is a play on 212 feet (just missing a 0). 2011 is my hope and guess.

Another concern is exactly how is this ride going to interact with the Comet? There has been a lot of talk about changing the Comet's structure to accomodate whatever this new attraction will be. I don't know about anyone else, but the Comet holds a special place in my heart(1st ever coaster), and I'm worried that the views from Comet's 1st and 2nd drops might be dramatically changed. One thing I always loved was how each of the drops face slighly inward at each other, causing each drop to seem larger and steeper than it actually is. I think if something is built directly above those drops, that feeling will be humbled.I'm also wondering if this will mean the end of the Sooperdooperlooper. Unlike the Comet, the 'looper isn't a very popular ride, and it would seem like a good decision schematically and financially. By no means would I be in support of removing the 'looper, it's a classic and is very rideable, just looking at it from the business standpoint. I guess we'll just see. If its what I hope it will be I know I can put up with it.

I have a feeling that this thing is going to be all over the Comet. If the markings are indications of footers and supports, than the ride will extend from the games area in the hollow, over and around Comet's station and exit, and back along the water.

I've heard word of it 'threading the needle' through Comet's structure too, which would be pretty neat, in my opinion. But the view riding the comet will most definitely be different. I'm not sure why that's necessary, since there is a lot of room along the water to build it. I'm not a big fan of squeezing these coasters in on top of other rides, like Hershey does. But they don't have a lot of options at this point. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing just how this coaster's layout looks.

On the Looper note, I will be devastated if it's removed. I think it was mentioned on Screamscape that it was being considered. The ride is classic, and it still runs just how Schwarzkopf intended. It gives a great night ride along the creek. It seems to be a very solid ride still, but it is 34 years old. When will its servicable life end? How hard are parts to get, and how expensive are they? I'm not ready to see it go. Hersheypark would not be the same without it.

I won't go into details, because I don't want to participate is spreading the news, more than I just have. There is info out there in cyberspace now. This whole 'word of mouth, create buzz in the coaster community in small amounts' seems silly to me. Just announce the damn thing.

I for one will be hoping it's a B&M Hyper as opposed to an Intamin Hyper. I was on the fence between the two at first. I feel the best steel coasters out there are Intamin hypers, but the whole lap bar/OTS restraint thing has me hoping to see a B&M ride.

*Edit:

I wish to retract this. It is more clear now that the announcement of the new ride will be this spring, most likely meaning the ride will open for the 2012 season, with a 12+ month contruction plan.

Still seems a little early to start the whole viral marketing thing, especially if the ride is simply a 200 foot hyper coaster. Nobody is even talking about it anymore from what I see. They'd better drop another hint soon.

This is exciting! I'm glad to see a good coaster installation. Hershey does need a hyper.

> I for one will be hoping it's a B&M Hyper as opposed to an
> Intamin Hyper. I was on the fence between the two at first.
> I feel the best steel coasters out there are Intamin
> hypers, but the whole lap bar/OTS restraint thing has me
> hoping to see a B&M ride.

I agree with you here 100%. Intamin hypers are some of the best out there. However, if they are going to use the restraints used on I-305 (kills the ride experience IMO) then I would much rather prefer a B&M. It's not like they aren't solid rides. Overall, this ride will probably make a trip to Hershey worth while next year, but the restraints could make or break the ride.

> If it is an Intamin and they use the current 305 restraints
> then I would not see a problem...as long as they arent the
> original...lol

I don't know. There is something so much more free and exciting about having only a lap bar holding you in at great heights and high speeds. I just don't think Intamin will ever build a ride again, looping or not, without OTS restraints. It's a real shame.

If the ride doesn't go upside down, then a lap bar and seat belt should be sufficient.

> I have a feeling that this thing is going to be all over
> the Comet. If the markings are indications of footers and
> supports, than the ride will extend from the games area in
> the hollow, over and around Comet's station and exit, and
> back along the water.

> I've heard word of it 'threading the needle' through
> Comet's structure too, which would be pretty neat, in my
> opinion. But the view riding the comet will most definitely
> be different. I'm not sure why that's necessary, since
> there is a lot of room along the water to build it. I'm not
> a big fan of squeezing these coasters in on top of other
> rides, like Hershey does. But they don't have a lot of
> options at this point. I'm definitely looking forward to
> seeing just how this coaster's layout looks.

> On the Looper note, I will be devastated if it's removed. I
> think it was mentioned on Screamscape that it was being
> considered. The ride is classic, and it still runs just how
> Schwarzkopf intended. It gives a great night ride along the
> creek. It seems to be a very solid ride still, but it is 34
> years old. When will its servicable life end? How hard are
> parts to get, and how expensive are they? I'm not ready to
> see it go. Hersheypark would not be the same without it.

I've always said that the SooperDooperLooper is an excellent "first coaster" for anyone who has never been on a coaster with inversions, since it is a very tame ride with one loop and a not-very-steep first drop. You would think that the Looper would be more popular with children, who would be intimidated by, or too small to ride the larger, more intense multi-inversion coasters.

>> I've always said that the SooperDooperLooper is an
> excellent "first coaster" for anyone who has
> never been on a coaster with inversions, since it is a very
> tame ride with one loop and a not-very-steep first drop.
> You would think that the Looper would be more popular with
> children, who would be intimidated by, or too small to ride
> the larger, more intense multi-inversion coasters.

Ouch. Mike, we gotta get you to Magic Mountain to ride the disappointment that Revolution has become with the OTS restraints. Perhaps then you can appreciate sooperdooperLooper as the treasure it is.

Don't get me wrong, if we're talking layouts, Revolution wins by a mile. But as far as a classic early Schwarzkopf looper experience, Hershey's takes it. It was just so disappointing to ride a great ride like Revolution with such unnecessary restraints.

As I stated earlier, it would be a crime to remove Looper from Hersheypark's line up.

> Ouch. Mike, we gotta get you to Magic Mountain to ride the
> disappointment that Revolution has become with the OTS
> restraints. Perhaps then you can appreciate
> sooperdooperLooper as the treasure it is.

You might have misinterpreted. When I said, "I'd still never miss it," I meant on a visit to the park. The ride will always be special to me, and I still have a lotta love for it.

I'm trying to think of a way I could go tomorrow, but it's probably not happening if I expect to hit GAdv on Sunday.

> > As I stated earlier, it would be a crime to remove Looper
> from Hersheypark's line up.

> To be honest I'm actually going to be very dissapointed if
> this isn't a hyper with some decent length. Don't get me
> wrong, I absolutely love Hershey and enjoy their coaster
> collection, but they desperately need something longer than
> 3400'(Length of LR, which is the longest in the park).

> Also, I'm very surprised on how many people would prefer a
> B&M over an Intamin. I mean I do understand the reliablity
> difference between the two companies, but the ride
> experience is much more thrilling with Intamin.(Better
> airtime and way more out of control). With B&M you get a
> more comfortable seat, but they feel soooooo IN control.

> Not that I would mind a B&M, but would prefer an Intamin. I
> am just hoping regardless of the manufacturers, it's a
> stereotypical hyper with airtime hills and not a shortened
> version with an abundance of twists and turns, because
> Hershey is loaded with medium length "twisty"
> coasters. A nice, long out & back loaded with airtime
> hills would complement their collection perfectly.

Not that we see Franchise on here much anymore, he hit the nail on the head.

First of all, let me say how proud I am of this site and its members for not even discussing the whole viral campaign that Hersheypark is putting on right now. There is a different breed of fans on this site, a breed to which I can relate. It's mind-numbing reading all of the guesses and speculation that's out there on other boards.

For those interested in the ride itself, there seems to be a decent amount of information that made its way out. It seems to have 'only' a 196 foot first drop. A layout has been "leaked", and it looks to be twisting and a little lacking in the length department.

I'm a little underwhelmed at this point. I will reserve total judgement until I ride it, of course. But it looks like it could be more of the same from Hersheypark.

What a surprise. It appears that Hershey is going to build a coaster with below average length with more focus on twists and turns than airtime(sarcasm). This appears to be very similar to I-305 only on a smaller scale. I am optimistic that is this is the final linear layout and there's enough airtime hills this can be an amazing ride though. You can't deny that Hershey does not short change on intensity. Here's to hoping for the best.

> What a surprise. It appears that Hershey is going to build
> a coaster with below average length with more focus on
> twists and turns than airtime(sarcasm). This appears to be
> very similar to I-305 only on a smaller scale. I am
> optimistic that is this is the final linear layout and
> there's enough airtime hills this can be an amazing ride
> though. You can't deny that Hershey does not short change
> on intensity. Here's to hoping for the best.

The two Intamin coasters are intense, no doubt. And I don't doubt that this coaster will also be intense. There look to be two large airtime hills in the middle (the X portion). There also appear to be some smaller hills at the end of the ride.

But, it looks like the majority of the ride will hug the ground. I loved I-305, and a similar ride would be welcome at any other park. But for Hershey, I feel they needed a tall, majestic, long, airtime machine. Instead, like I said before, we get more of the same.

Either way, like mugen said, there is no way the ride time will be over a minute. From crest of the lift to break run, at that speed, it seems we're looking at a very short ride time.

> First of all, let me say how proud I am of this site and
> its members for not even discussing the whole viral
> campaign that Hersheypark is putting on right now. There is
> a different breed of fans on this site, a breed to which I
> can relate. It's mind-numbing reading all of the guesses
> and speculation that's out there on other boards.

> For those interested in the ride itself, there seems to be
> a decent amount of information that made its way out. It
> seems to have 'only' a 196 foot first drop. A layout has
> been "leaked", and it looks to be twisting and a
> little lacking in the length department.

> I'm a little underwhelmed at this point. I will reserve
> total judgement until I ride it, of course. But it looks
> like it could be more of the same from Hersheypark.

> (And by that I mean a too-short (length) twisting steel
> coaster.)

Hersheypark is one of my favorite parks, or used to be. They have made a number of questionable decisions over the past few years, so the park has fallen a bit out of favor with me. The most glaring error to me is removing Canyon River Rapids and the installation of an in-park waterpark in an already land-locked park. But I digress...

I only wish they put as much thought into the design of the aforementioned steel coasters as they did in to the marketing of them. Fahrenheit was basically a sequel to Storm Runner, which came up short itself. Now with the new hypercoaster, they come up short again.

I'm sure most of us were hoping for a airtime-machine hyper, stretching from Comet Hollow and over to the golf course. Instead, they are building a compact, hyper-twister. With a rumored price-tag of $23 million, I almost think "why bother?" Unless, you are going to build a proper hypercoaster, why go through the trouble and why spend all that money for something that seems so mediocre on paper. I hope to be proven wrong, but Hershey's track record has not been very good.

I just don't get the effort that they are putting into the viral marketing campaign for a coaster that seems like it will be incredibly lame. They are spending so much time engaging the coaster community online in the promotion of Attraction 2012, but yet they apparently haven't spent anytime listening to what their park is severely missing.

Could the park management be that out of touch? I know they say that they are a "family park" but if you are going to build a hyper, then build a hyper, not a watered down one.

Does anyone have any thoughts on why Hershey's steel coasters continue to come up short?

Wow, great points. I agree with every single thing you said. If I may piggyback on what you've already said so well...

> Hersheypark is one of my favorite parks, or used to be.
> They have made a number of questionable decisions over the
> past few years, so the park has fallen a bit out of favor
> with me. The most glaring error to me is removing Canyon
> River Rapids and the installation of an in-park waterpark
> in an already land-locked park. But I digress...

The waterpark has been great for drawing people to the gate, but at what long-term cost? Midway America is ruined, and there is no more land inside the park to develop.

Additionally, since the waterpark is landlocked and is too small itself, it's just a total mob of people in the summer time. What waterpark out there can handle 40,000 people (a busy day at Hersheypark)? The location is just idiotic. Now they need to expand it, and expansion will only come at the expense of other dry rides.

> I only wish they put as much thought into the design of the
> aforementioned steel coasters as they did in to the
> marketing of them. Fahrenheit was basically a sequel to
> Storm Runner, which came up short itself. Now with the new
> hypercoaster, they come up short again.

> I just don't get the effort that they are putting into the
> viral marketing campaign for a coaster that seems like it
> will be incredibly lame. They are spending so much time
> engaging the coaster community online in the promotion of
> Attraction 2012, but yet they apparently haven't spent
> anytime listening to what their park is severely missing.

Exactly. The coaster community will come to ride this thing because it's an Intamin hyper. They don't need to stir up excitement there. These rides sell themselves to coaster fans... only if it's a good ride.

If the ride opens to mediocre reviews (like Fahrenheit... like Storm Runner... like Great Bear...) then this whole viral marketing game is for naught. It will be an afterthought as soon as the ride details are released anyway. I don't see the return in the investment. I don't see the point.

Not only is this ride coming up small compared to other megacoasters, it may be coming up small when the other 2012 coasters are announced over the coming months. And I expect there to be several of those.

> I'm sure most of us were hoping for a airtime-machine
> hyper, stretching from Comet Hollow and over to the golf
> course. Instead, they are building a compact,
> hyper-twister. With a rumored price-tag of $23 million, I
> almost think "why bother?" Unless, you are going
> to build a proper hypercoaster, why go through the trouble
> and why spend all that money for something that seems so
> mediocre on paper. I hope to be proven wrong, but Hershey's
> track record has not been very good.

I think the $23 million tag is misleading too. Considering the amount of site-work leading up to the constuction (which is considerable, due to the ride's location) a lot of that money is going towards damming, and dredging, and excavating. A similar ride on a flat piece of land would cost several million less.

> Could the park management be that out of touch? I know they
> say that they are a "family park" but if you are
> going to build a hyper, then build a hyper, not a watered
> down one.

To answer your first question, yes. Very much out of touch. Hershey seems to have developed an elitist mentality in recent years. The plan to cater to the super-rich, and their pricing reflects that.

There is also a 'good enough' mentality too, I think. They made a real splash in the industry when they opened Lightning Racer. The steel coasters all seem to be 'good enough', not great. If only they could make a splash with a steel coaster.

This coaster is not going to do it - at least it doesn't seem like it at this point. Too short in both height and length to really turn people's heads, at least in the coaster community.

Like you, I hope this ride totally rocks (albeit for 30 seconds), when it opens. But, I have some real reservations at this point.

> Does anyone have any thoughts on why Hershey's steel
> coasters continue to come up short?
>

It all comes down to money. They'll try to impress you with the $23 million price tag next year. But what about this year? Not a single new attraction. No major capital expenses in the way of additions to the park.

If the plan was to hold back this year, to spend more than normal next year, they there are coming up even shorter than we thought on this roller coaster.

Then again, with the long construction period, they could be spending 2011 capital dollars on the constuction this year. But then that would mean more could have been spent on the actual coaster "next" year. It's all semantics.

VP's have to keep the books in line, to collect those big bonus checks at the end of the year.

I hate sounding overly negative, but in all honesty, I'm being totally real. This is the present reality of Hersheypark - a place I love to death. It's sad in many ways.

Believe it or not though, I am totally stoked to give this thing a ride when it opens. It will be enough to get me to buy a season pass next year. I live close enough, I guess. I'll be there early and often, unless it's really a disappointing ride.

Thanks for the comments. Here's my thoughts to add to what you said...

> The waterpark has been great for drawing people to the
> gate, but at what long-term cost? Midway America is ruined,
> and there is no more land inside the park to develop.

The in-park waterpark is a mistake in my opinion because a large part of the park becomes unusable (and doesn't generate income when empty) early and late in the season, as well as on days with questionable or cool weather.

> Additionally, since the waterpark is landlocked and is too
> small itself, it's just a total mob of people in the summer
> time. What waterpark out there can handle 40,000 people (a
> busy day at Hersheypark)? The location is just idiotic. Now
> they need to expand it, and expansion will only come at the
> expense of other dry rides.

Exactly! They realized they built a substandard waterpark and tried to expand it, at the expense of one of my favorite rapid rides. Now, the waterpark is still landlocked, with the only way to expand being to remove existing dry rides. Also, they could have spread out the crowds better by locating the waterpark on the site of the old pool or golf course. Not only would it alleviate some of the crowding, but they would have been able to market a second gate (technically a 3rd with ZooAmerica being 2nd).

> VP's have to keep the books in line, to collect those big
> bonus checks at the end of the year.

As with the rest of corporate America, sad but true. Also, as you mentioned that a lot of the price tag probably has to do with excavating the land, etc. it seems that an out-and-back hyper that would stretch down to the old pool area would not have required the same land development and creek work that this mini-twister requires.

> I hate sounding overly negative, but in all honesty, I'm
> being totally real. This is the present reality of
> Hersheypark - a place I love to death. It's sad in many
> ways.

I agree completely. It's a place that I have loved since I was a kid, hence my screen name. ;-)

> Believe it or not though, I am totally stoked to give this
> thing a ride when it opens. It will be enough to get me to
> buy a season pass next year. I live close enough, I guess.
> I'll be there early and often, unless it's really a
> disappointing ride.

I now live on the west coast, so I don't get to Hershey as often as I used to, but the current info that has leaked on the ride does not make me want to buy a plane ticket. Plus, I am still in shock that they removed Canyon River Rapids. Parks have been removing old water rides (shoot-the-shoots and log flumes) left and right but a major theme park without a rapids ride just seems insane.

Well the problem with Hershey is they have absolutely no room to build anything, of course unless they tear some rides down, that's why these new rides aren't as long as some in other parks.

I also severely miss Canyon River Rapids, but I miss it for different reasons, I have never in my life been on that ride but working it for over four years I grew to love it! I know the guests loved it and most employees loved to work there and it was definitely a sad day to see it go.

> The color is very similar to Great Bear's
> supports, which I think is odd. Oh well, interesting turn
> of events anyway.

I hate to sound negative, but the color is as uninspiring as the leaked layout. Hopefully the track color will be bold enough to no look just sort of "meh."

It has been rumored that the length may be around 5500 feet, but I don't see how that is possible considering I-305 is 5100 feet long and it's 100 feet taller. Looks more like another mediocre, yet fun, coaster for Hershey.

On Thursday I was able to see some work being done while riding The Comet. For the most part they were clearing land and digging holes. It looks as if some of the coaster will be adjacent to the back side of The Comet.

> Intimidator 305 no longer has trims, nor does it have
> uncomfortable restraints. It now has soft shoulder straps,
> and an improvement to the first turn resulted in the
> removal of the trim breaks.

I-305 still has trims, they just are back on the 3rd hill where they originally had them instead of the 1st drop.

Not seeing how this is related to the Hershey coaster, but figured I should clear that up.

I305 did indeed drop the trim-brakes so they could advertise their 94MPH top-speed once again. I've seen videos of I305 with the trim-brakes on and it DID look significantly milder than when I rode it this summer in its "revised layout".

I'm surprised at all the hate I see for Hershey's recent coasters. In a coaster-world that consists of B&M cranking out the same stuff over and over again and Intamin building nothing but top-hat shots, coasters like StormRunner and Fahrenheit are a breath of fresh air.

StormRunner has to be one of my favorite coasters...sure the tophat isn't as tall as TTD or KdK, but it actually DOES something after the TopHat...taking advantage of the park's geography to pull some neat inversions. I'll agree that it ends way too soon...it feels like it's gonna pull an I305-style hammerhead and then BRAKES!! I'd like to see it last another 20 seconds at least with another inversion...if it did, then it would easily be in the running for my favorite coaster of all-time. But Hershey is kinda low on real-estate, as previous posters have pointed out.

As for Fahrenheit, it was no giga-coaster, but as far as intensity goes, I was VERY impressed. A unique starting element in the vertical hill/past-vertical drop, followed by twists and turns that easily rival something like Dominator, not to mention a couple of high-speed head-choppers and even a little airtime-hill before the final brake-run. I guess it's a case of, "to each his own".

As far as the "new construction", I was there in late June and also saw the creek being drained near the SooperDooperLooper. There was nothing that screamed "rollercoaster", so I could only hope. But now that I've seen some confirmation, I'm very excited about the prospect.

I can't see the pictures...firewalled at work...but if it's fast and twisty, I'm into it. As much as I liked I305, it was the sheer speed that made me love it...it turned overbanked hammerheads into virtual "horizontal loops" at that speed. I've never been much on "hypercoasters" with nothing but repeated bunny-hills (basically wood-coasters made of steel)...Nitro was something of a let-down when I rode it at 6F GAdv.

The one thing you CAN say about Hershey is that their rides are unique and take advantage of the layout of the park and the terrain to the fullest. You could never box up StormRunner or Great Bear and move them into the parking lot of another theme-park (like Dominator at KD or Green Lantern/Chang at 6F GAdv). These coasters, although seemingly short in length, are the kind that I can ride three or more times a day without getting bored. My brothers and I rode Stormrunner 5 times the first day it was there...and it didn't even open until noon!

>> As for Fahrenheit, it was no giga-coaster, but as far as
> intensity goes, I was VERY impressed. A unique starting
> element in the vertical hill/past-vertical drop,

I guess it's unique if one hasn't been on Canobie's new Untamed, Dollywood's Mystery Mine, or SF's Ultra Twister, the latter two of which pre-dated Fahrenheit. Granted, their drops are not as steep, but Icontinue to dig that vertical lift.

Welcome to URC, Squirrels. Don't think I've seen you 'round these here parts before. New in town? Lookin' for the man who shot yer "paw?"...sorry, couldn't resist.

> I'm surprised at all the hate I see for Hershey's recent
> coasters. In a coaster-world that consists of B&M cranking
> out the same stuff over and over again and Intamin building
> nothing but top-hat shots, coasters like StormRunner and
> Fahrenheit are a breath of fresh air.

I would say there is a lot of "hate" for the Hershey steel coasters. The issue I have is not with the coasters, it's with the decision makers cutting these rides short, and not creating high capacity rides. It seems to be all in the name of saving money.

Saving money is fine if your a small to medium park. But HE&R is a large, successful company with a wealth of resources and a township in their back pocket. When it comes to building steel coasters, they really have no limits. Yet, they limit themselves every time.

I enjoy the rides. I totally agree with you about Storm Runner. 20 more seconds and it may also be one of my favorites. Instead, it just reminds me every time I ride it about what I don't like about HE&R.

As far as Fahrenheit goes, I actually love the ride. Sure it's short, but I think it gives a complete and very fun ride. It's their best steel coaster in my opinion.

You mentioned land being an issue. The park actually has a lot of room to expand, but it will cost them now. They've made some poor, short sighted decisions with land usage to get to the position they're in at the moment (water park location). Putting the water park where it is was the easy way to go. Now they're looking to expand the park into where the water park should have gone in the first place. From a big picture standpoint, it's idiocy really.

Yup, I'm new. 31 y/o male from Baltimore. After crashing about 5 motorcycles (one which shattered my femur into three pieces Frank Mir style), I figured I should seek thrills elsewhere this year. Should I introduce myself formally? :)

I'm not sure I agree about Hershey having limitless resources. The town's taxes don't pay for the park and I doubt that Hershey Chocolate is making as much money with the resources they spend running the park as they could if they focused on "core business".

Somehow, they seem to hang with some of the larger parks though. I guess they pretty much control that southeastern PA area theme-park-wise. I know it's probably the closest park to Baltimore and Philly, which makes it a good target for family outings. But I'm not sure if Hersheypark is helping Hershey sell chocolate, or even if the funds are coming out of the same bucket. If the economy turns south and people don't have money to spend on coasters, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they groomed that park for sale to Cedar Fair or Six Flags.

As for the nature of the coaster, to each his own. While length IS an issue, I would rather see something with a couple of inversions and tricks than just a long hilly hyper-coaster. Sure, it won't tower above the skyline from a mile away, but I bet it'll still be a rush. At least...I'm HOPING it'll still be a rush. I'm all about intensity, though. :)

I'm actually kind of glad that they're having to route it around/through the Comet/SDL, because it means it'll be another one-off design, not just a knock-off of something built somewhere else.

> I'm not sure I agree about Hershey having limitless
> resources. The town's taxes don't pay for the park and I
> doubt that Hershey Chocolate is making as much money with
> the resources they spend running the park as they could if
> they focused on "core business".

The Hershey Trust Company owns and operates the Milton Hershey School, and owns 100% of HE&R, and the majority of shares of the Hershey Company. The Hershey Trust Company has more money than it can spend, though the majority of it's assets are to be used in managing the school.

That being said, HE&R brings in money from all over, but it is the park that is most profitable and keeps the whole company afloat.

My reference to having the township in their pocket refers to the fact that the park has an easy time getting permits and variances, even to the point of moving/removing public facilities and roads, because the township collects millions in tax dollars from the company. The townships financial well-being rests on the Hershey properties.

In all reality, Hersheypark can pretty much build whatever they want. Yet, they continue to come up short for some reason. It's frustrating to see it happen repetitively over the years.

> As for the nature of the coaster, to each his own. While
> length IS an issue, I would rather see something with a
> couple of inversions and tricks than just a long hilly
> hyper-coaster. Sure, it won't tower above the skyline from
> a mile away, but I bet it'll still be a rush. At
> least...I'm HOPING it'll still be a rush. I'm all about
> intensity, though. :)

Welcome to the forum Squirrels!

I disagree completely with your assessment of the new coaster - they need some steel that's long and hilly. That's what's missing there. Now, I admit I LOVE hills, big hills that go on and on (and launches which is why Storm Runner is in my top 10) and they don't have anything like that. I don't think you can ever go wrong with a B&M Hyper - they're reliable, smooth as silk, have great capacity and just about everyone loves them. If inversions are you're thing you have Fahrenheit (which I don't particularly care for very much because inversions are not my thing). So let me have my hyper!! Or even better - a DIVE COASTER!! (I'm still getting over my Griffon addiction so pardon my outburst LOL!).

And I'd be VERY surprised if they sold the park - that park does well. It has a variety of coasters, is beautifully maintained and they have retained most of their flats which makes it perfect for families and thrill seekers alike. There aren't many like it out there. Now, they may not have the best coasters but they have enough of them to make a trip worth while IMO.

I saw the supports as we were driving into the park, they were over by Lightning Racer though, which is all the way across from the area I saw being cleared over by The Comet. The area that was all dirt, from what I could tell, was not big enough for a hyper like Nitro or Intimidator.

The park was amazing today, was my second visit ever, went back in 2006. I actually really liked Farenheit and all the woodies are really fun to me.

Today was just a fun/great day for me and my friend. Such a good day to call out of work and drive 2 hours to Hershey :)

> In all reality, Hersheypark can pretty much build whatever
> they want. Yet, they continue to come up short for some
> reason. It's frustrating to see it happen repetitively over
> the years.

I don't think Hershey has carpe' blanche like you think they should (since the basically own the town.) Look at their last coaster additions. (Comet, Trailblazer, and SDL don't count since Hershey was a VASTLY different park back then)

1991 - Sidewinder (off the shelf boomerang) park was still growing.

1996 - Wildcat (GCI Twister) At the time, this would be considered an appropriate sized coaster for Hershey at the time. Sure they had the space to build a Mean Streak or Texas Giant, but GCI was a new company and Wildcat was meant to be an "old time" woodie, so not too small, definitely, not too big.

1998 - Great Bear (medium sized inverted) Hershey was still growing and did not want a "really big" inverted coaster to compete in the coaster wars that were going on at the time. Plus, they told B&M that the ride had to weave around/over SDL and the log flume and that no supports could go in the waters of Spring Creek, limiting what B&M could do with the ride.

2000 - Lightning Racer (duel track racing woodie) This is the one coaster that has been able to support the current growth that Hershey has obtained. Two tracks, 4 trains, large profile. Any larger park would love to have this ride as an addition if they ever gave up their own wooden racer or was looking for one.

2002 - Roller Soaker (water coaster) It was never supposed to be a big ride.

2004- Storm Runner (launch coaster) Now here is the debate on size. Could Hershey have gotten permits to build a larger ride? Perhaps, but consider that Hershey is a neighborhood park and Storm Runner has sections running right along Park Ave, a residential street. Plus the area they chose to build it was completely landlocked and populated with other attractions(remember, at the time, Midway America was being developed as a "Lost Kennywood" type tribute to old amusement parks. So Storm Runner, by that logic had to stay within its confined area basically on top of and around Trailblazer. They could have done more with it if they were willing to sacrifice Trailblazer, but I'm sure that was never considered an option (and should never have been). Storm Runner is short, but is probably the best ride Hershey could have gotten for the area they had chose to put it in.

2008 - Fahrenheit (vertical lift looper) A lot of people considered Fahrenheit redundant after Storm Runner, but think of what happened. Hershey had got rid of the Giant Wheel to add the Frequent Faller model that fell through because of price discrepancies. Hershey had also removed the Wet/Dry slides and was looking for something that would fit in that spot. Fahrenheit was designed to fit into a pretty small footprint by any coaster standards. If Hershey was willing to build a bigger ride, they would not have been able to fit it there. (which was the only reason Fahrenheit was added).

After all of this, I guess my point is that Hershey made decisions for coasters that were right at the time. Anyone who has seen the old "HersheyPark : Sweetness of Success" documentary knows that Hershey did not grow into the mega park it has become until the last 10 years. Maybe, in hindsight, a large sprawling hyper coaster could have fit in Midway America instead of the waterpark, but I think it is obvious why Hershey did that at the time. The park was not ready to build a $20+ million dollar behemoth right next to a residential street back in the mid 2000's.

We really don't know what this new coaster is. Based on what I saw 2 weeks ago, it isn't going to be that big, but knowing Hershey's track record, it will be a "solid" ride that will fit add to their current crop of "solid" rides.

> I don't think Hershey has carpe' blanche like you think
> they should (since the basically own the town.) Look at
> their last coaster additions. (Comet, Trailblazer, and SDL
> don't count since Hershey was a VASTLY different park back
> then)

Ok, they can't built whatever they want. But they pretty much can. My argument is that they have the resources and they have a township that approves everything because it's advantageous for them.

>deleted coaster segment<
(I'll reply to it in a different post)

> I guess my point is that Hershey made
> decisions for coasters that were right at the time. Anyone
> who has seen the old "HersheyPark : Sweetness of
> Success" documentary knows that Hershey did not grow
> into the mega park it has become until the last 10 years.

Hershey decide to match whits with Great Adventure, Kings Dominion and the like in the 1980's, when they started to add rides almost every year.

It was under the tenure of GM/VP Franklin Shearer that the park really started to change into a major player. Under his watch, they added Sidewinder in 1991, Tidal Force in 1994, Wildcat in 1996, Great Bear in 1998, Wild Mouse in 1999, and his crowning jewel, Lightning Racer in 2000. He retired mid-2002, I believe.

I question the direction the park has taken since he left. I mean, they added nothing this year or last year. You just don't do that in this industry, especially if you're Hersheypark.

The 90's was a great time, as I lived in the area then. Hersheypark was adding a new roller coaster every other year through Storm Runner. Now it's every four years.

Those rides under Shearer were not short-changed in my opinion, and they exceeded anything the park had done to that point. They aren't mid-sized rides. They are legit roller coasters.

Wild Cat is a heck of a ride (I think it still is), and a twister like that had not been seen in half a century.

Great Bear was a very impressive undertaking, despite it's length. It's ending is lame, but otherwise it's a very good invert, and it's location was mind-boggling at the time.

Lightning Racer is just an impressive feat of engineering, and an incredible ride to boot. That was Shearer's baby, all the way - from what I understand.

> Maybe, in hindsight, a large sprawling hyper coaster could
> have fit in Midway America instead of the waterpark, but I
> think it is obvious why Hershey did that at the time. The
> park was not ready to build a $20+ million dollar behemoth
> right next to a residential street back in the mid 2000's.

The water park is only 4 years ago. And that was a $25+ million dollar project - over $40 million when you include 2009's phase two. I would argue that the park could have and should have built a $20 million dollar roller coaster years ago.

> We really don't know what this new coaster is. Based on
> what I saw 2 weeks ago, it isn't going to be that big, but
> knowing Hershey's track record, it will be a
> "solid" ride that will fit add to their current
> crop of "solid" rides.

Actually, there's a pretty good idea of what this ride is. The layout is accurate. It's 212 feet tall. It's Intamin. The name is likely "Skyrush". The colors are goldenrod track with light blue supports.

It's likely a mega-coaster, though a wing-rider is a slim possibility. What we don't know is the train and restraint set-up, and any unique twist that Hersheypark likes to add to their coasters. This one will likely have some sort of water effect.

I'm sure this ride will be "solid", and I would agree that the other HP Intamins are as well. As a life-long fan and customer, I've just grown tired of "solid" rides at HP. It's like they settle for "solid". I want something spectacular, and they have the means to do it.

Okay I was looking for an update on project 2012 and saw all the comments on here and had to reply. When I was in high school 1999-2003 I got passes every year for Hershey, where my father grew up. One thing I noticed right off the bat is it is a bit pricey, but has great rides maybe no drop tower, but pleanty of great rides and much to do in the town.

Secondly, I found it very clean people are even going by with brooms and dust pans cleaning up... as for the new coasters I have not been up there in a few years, but from what I have seen on youtube they look awesome. You don't have to travel across country to California, or South to Florida, midwest to Ohio, or even to New Jersey just to enjoy a collection of coasters and other rides.

Finally, I work at a rec center and a local high school I do tell kids if you want to go to an amusement park Hershey is it ... a little more money yes, better rides including coasters and cleaner than Dorney. I live closer to Dorney by say 20 mins the few non-kiddie coasters like 5/6 now well they're okay but they got rid of alot and when I went with friends the other year they had 4 open sighs quailty ok quantity not. I like the Great Bear and the first drop into the lake awesome, sidewinder is great too, I am sure this coaster will only make the park better and I will def be heading up there next year.

If you want a better waterpark than either Hershey or Dorney then go to Camelback Beach much bigger and better, but for a combo park Hershey is #1 just so much to see and do.

Anyone notice that the colors of Skyrush are the same colors as the trains on the sooperdooperLooper, light blue, yellow and dark blue? Wonder if they will change the colors of the Looper's trains so they look more unique.

I LOVE it! That's exactly the kind of coaster Hershey needs.The fight for the winged seats is going to be pretty bad I imagine. They'll probably do what they did with Fahrenheit and assign the seating and it will just be the luck of the draw.

> I LOVE it! That's exactly the kind of coaster Hershey
> needs.The fight for the winged seats is going to be pretty
> bad I imagine. They'll probably do what they did with
> Fahrenheit and assign the seating and it will just be the
> luck of the draw.

> Can't wait!!!
> Jen

I imagine they did that on purpose, to make the ride appeal to as many riders as possible. Children and the timid can sit on the inside, while the thrill-riders sit on the outside. I know I'll be jockeying for the outside, though. :)

I don't recall seating being "assigned" when I rode Fahrenheit. What do you mean?

I don't know what a 270 degree panoramic view is. It sounds made up. Otherwise, I'm excited for these trains. No mention so far of the restraints. Here's hoping for lap-bars, like the B&M staggered-seating trains. Fingers crossed.

> Structure Steel track
> Maximum Height 200 feet

What happened to the requested height of 212.2? That's what the park submitted for this ride. Why is it 12 feet shorter? Why is no one talking about this short-coming?

Track Length 3600 ft

Are you kidding me? That's it? All I heard all along was that this would be the longest ride in the park. Well, it is... by 100 feet. This is PATHETIC, in my opinion, and it's got me all fired up again about Hershey's decision making.

> Elements

> 50-degree ascent

Sounds good.

> 85-degree descent

Sounds GREAT!

> Four high-speed/high-banked curves

Sounds good.

> Five airtime hills

Sounds good - I thought there'd be more.

> Lift Speed 26 feet per second

Sounds good, I'm thinking cable lift, though no mention was made of this either.

> Maximum Speed 75 mph (+/-)

Sounds good, but it's just a smidge faster than Storm Runner, which is listed on RCDB as 75 mph. I thought it was 72.

Why hasn't the height of the first drop been released? Too short to market? Fromt he looks of the construction site, I'm thinking less than 190. Still good, but not what I was expecting.

> CAPACITY AND RIDE TIME
> Number of Trains 2
> Capacity per Train 32 riders

I was hoping for three trains. But 32 riders at a time is not bad. Especially when you factor in...

Wow. Just wow. Pathetic ride time. I would hope that this is the time from the top of the lift to the brakes, but I doubt it. It seems as if that is the estimated time from dispatch to station brakes.

We already know that 10+ seconds is lift, leaving 53 seconds for the rest of the ride.

The brakes are where I suspected them to be. So, take off another 20+ seconds for brakes, return to station.

> COST
> Projected Cost $25 million (estimated)

... a major portion of which is the excavation and construction. This ride looks to be a $10-15 million ride on a flat piece of land.

Again, I can't wait to ride it. For now, I'm just disappointed, again, in another too short roller coaster from Hersheypark.

I'm sorry, but aside from the extensive marketing campaign (whose parts don't seem to add up) this all has the feel of "going through the motions" from Hersheypark. It feels kinda' half-@$$ed to me, almost like they committed to an announcement date, but ran out of time to put everything together.

The announcement looked silly. The image of the layout (new, yellow one) is very poorly done, and doesn't match up with the video or the aerial blueprint image.

The video is downright pathetic too. It looks like a 10 year-old did it on RCT. I hope more info is coming.

There is really nothing impressive about this ride for me. I think most people are underwhelmed by the announcement, but don't want to say so.

I do like the logo, though.

*Edit

I changed the time of the lift. I misread the stats. It looks to be approximately a 10 second lift, as it moves at 26 feet per second.

Using my rusty geometry, the lift's length will be 260 ft of track, which is where I get the 10 seconds.

While the stats of the ride may not seem too impressive I too cant wait to ride it. It may be a very tames version of I305 but for Hershey I think it will be a great fit.

My only complaint, and this is such a minor one, is the marketing tool of it being called the "country's first winged seat coaster train". Its a modified version of the B&M staggered hyper trains and a play on a B&M Wing Rider.

> I don't recall seating being "assigned" when I
> rode Fahrenheit. What do you mean?

They have lightened up a bit on this but when it first opened and for a while after or sometimes if it's extremely busy they tell you what row to go to and you were not allowed to wait for any other row. It was technically assigned rows, which is really assigned seating IMO since it is only a 2 seater. (This was probably done more because the platform is so small more than anything but I used this as an example b/c it is a Hershey coaster)

Diamondback is probably a better example of assigned seating and I think this ride will be treated more like that where you are assigned which seat you are in to avoid problems with patrons waiting for the winged seats, at least in the beginning.

I'm actually excited about Skyrush. A winged hyper coaster with a 85° drop sounds pretty awesome. I viewed the virtual ride and I think it's going to be great ride. I know it's only 3600 feet, but that's 400 feet longer than Phantom's Revenge. I can't wait to ride it. I have a feeling this coaster will exceed expectations.

> What happened to the requested height of 212.2? That's what
> the park submitted for this ride. Why is it 12 feet
> shorter? Why is no one talking about this short-coming?

My guess is this is for total height. The track doesn't go all the way to the ground so the 12 feet is probably the total height from the ground up. The actual drop will be 200 feet but the coaster will probably be 212 feet in height from the ground.

> What happened to the requested height of 212.2? That's what
> the park submitted for this ride. Why is it 12 feet
> shorter? Why is no one talking about this short-coming?

> My guess is this is for total height. The track doesn't go
> all the way to the ground so the 12 feet is probably the
> total height from the ground up. The actual drop will be
> 200 feet but the coaster will probably be 212 feet in
> height from the ground.

I don't know. Everything that has been released has said that the ride is 200 feet tall, and says nothing of the drop's height. I'm thinking it's 200 feet in total height.

The answer may be that the 212 feet is based off the creek bed, but that the water, when the pond is full is about 12 feet deep. The park would then be advertising the coaster as 200 feet off of the pond's surface, which is where the coaster may top off.

> Ok, they can't built whatever they want. But they
> pretty much can. My argument is that they have the
> resources and they have a township that approves everything
> because it's advantageous for them.

The township did not allow the park to build the water park in the golf course. That's the reason why the built the water park in Midway America instead.

Great Bear was designed to go into the creek area where Skyrush is being built. It was removed when the township declined the parks request to build footers in the creek, because that section of the ride was going to go through the creek.

Storm Runner was originally designed to have a 125' tall normal loop, and go underneath the high bridge in Minetown, have an immelmann (to parallel Great Bear), then fly over the Minetown kiddie rides and go into the snake dive. It was removed when the township wouldn't allow Storm Runner supports in the creek, and required the park to remove the old Turnpike bridges in that part of Comet Hollow.

So, the park pretty much can't build whatever they want. But at least they have a crumbling bridge on their side. The township would prefer the park to stay within the current footprint, but moving the road is the logical thing to do since the Park Boulevard bridge needs to be replaced.

I'm wondering if this thing will have an LSM lift, as opposed to a cable lift. If that's the case, the lift could be very quick.

Intamin's done both.

We shall see.

> The township did not allow the park to build the water park
> in the golf course. That's the reason why the built the
> water park in Midway America instead.

> Great Bear was designed to go into the creek area where
> Skyrush is being built. It was removed when the township
> declined the parks request to build footers in the creek,
> because that section of the ride was going to go through
> the creek.

> Storm Runner was originally designed to have a 125' tall
> normal loop, and go underneath the high bridge in Minetown,
> have an immelmann (to parallel Great Bear), then fly over
> the Minetown kiddie rides and go into the snake dive. It
> was removed when the township wouldn't allow Storm Runner
> supports in the creek, and required the park to remove the
> old Turnpike bridges in that part of Comet Hollow.

> The township did not allow the park to build the water park
> in the golf course. That's the reason why the built the
> water park in Midway America instead.

False.

> Great Bear was designed to go into the creek area where
> Skyrush is being built. It was removed when the township
> declined the parks request to build footers in the creek,
> because that section of the ride was going to go through
> the creek.

False.

> Storm Runner was originally designed to have a 125' tall
> normal loop, and go underneath the high bridge in Minetown,
> have an immelmann (to parallel Great Bear), then fly over
> the Minetown kiddie rides and go into the snake dive. It
> was removed when the township wouldn't allow Storm Runner
> supports in the creek, and required the park to remove the
> old Turnpike bridges in that part of Comet Hollow.

> I don't know what a 270 degree panoramic view is. It sounds
> made up. Otherwise, I'm excited for these trains. No
> mention so far of the restraints. Here's hoping for
> lap-bars, like the B&M staggered-seating trains. Fingers
> crossed.

I think the 270 degrees refers to the fact that you can see underneath you, in front of you and above you, completely unobstructed. Maybe they should have said that... LOL.

> What happened to the requested height of 212.2? That's what
> the park submitted for this ride. Why is it 12 feet
> shorter? Why is no one talking about this short-coming?

Yes, that is odd, unless the ride is 12 feet off of the ground, with a 200 foot drop. The press release and fact sheet were not very clear.

> Track Length 3600 ft

> Are you kidding me? That's it? All I heard all along was
> that this would be the longest ride in the park. Well, it
> is... by 100 feet. This is PATHETIC, in my opinion, and
> it's got me all fired up again about Hershey's decision
> making.

Agreed, it is pathetic. A 200-foot tall ride that is under 4000 feet is pathetic. For comparison, the Looper is only 70 feet high and 2,600 feet long. Considering the length of the brake run on Skyrush, the longer lift and drop, the rest of the ride is probably as long as the Looper. This should have been a 5,000 foot-plus ride.

> CAPACITY AND RIDE TIME
> Number of Trains 2
> Capacity per Train 32 riders

> I was hoping for three trains. But 32 riders at a time is
> not bad. Especially when you factor in...

> Wow. Just wow. Pathetic ride time. I would hope that this
> is the time from the top of the lift to the brakes, but I
> doubt it. It seems as if that is the estimated time from
> dispatch to station brakes.

> We already know that 10+ seconds is lift, leaving 53
> seconds for the rest of the ride.

> The brakes are where I suspected them to be. So, take off
> another 20+ seconds for brakes, return to station.

> COST
> Projected Cost $25 million (estimated)

> ... a major portion of which is the excavation and
> construction. This ride looks to be a $10-15 million ride
> on a flat piece of land.

I think it's a ridiculous waste of $25 million to have such a small coaster. I'm not a fan of parking lot coasters, but a good hyper could have been built where Fahrenheit is if they ran it out along the back side of the Wildcat and back. Fahrenheit is another waste of money and space, but I digress...

> Again, I can't wait to ride it. For now, I'm just
> disappointed, again, in another too short roller coaster
> from Hersheypark.

Yes, it does look fun, but also looks way to short. And only 5 airtime hills??? The ride should have at least 10 hills.

> I'm sorry, but aside from the extensive marketing campaign
> (whose parts don't seem to add up) this all has the feel of
> "going through the motions" from Hersheypark. It
> feels kinda' half-@$$ed to me, almost like they committed
> to an announcement date, but ran out of time to put
> everything together.

The announcement was half-@ssed, considering how much effort they put into that stupid game, they didn't put any effort into the actual final presentation. I don't see how they could have been rushed, the ride was in the planning stages since 2010. The fact sheet was missing a lot of info and they didn't even have a drawing showing what the completed ride actually looks like.

> I do like the logo, though.

The logo is AMAZING! It will look great on a t-shirt or any other souvenir device. That is something they definitely got right. The name...well that's another story. It sounds so generic and lame. Plus, it doesn't even mean anything in relation to the ride. You are not "rushing" to the sky, StormRunner is more of a "skyrush" than this is, but oh well. I guess I will have to finally accept Hershey's lame coaster names and lame coaster layouts and stop hoping for better, because it's never going to happen.

I will say this though, that I do think Hershey wants to maintain it's family park status. And by that I used to think that it meant that they wanted big coasters but not too big. But let's face it, grandma is not riding the coasters with the kids. There is no way my mom would even get on the Looper, so she wouldn't care how big or small the coaster is. However, what I think they are trying to do is keep it a family park in terms of the type of crowds that patronize the park.

I have seen Knott's go from a "family" park to a park over-run by unruly teens and thugs like Magic Mountain since they started to add in bigger coasters. It's not the same and honestly, the crowds have become such a turn-off that I can no longer enjoy that park and just stopped going. So considering, that, in the end I have to respect Hershey's decisions to prevent becoming Dorney or SFGA.

> Drachen, I think we both share the same appreciation for
> Hersheypark, as well as frustration at some of their
> decisions.

Very frustrated...

> I think the 270 degrees refers to the fact that you can see
> underneath you, in front of you and above you, completely
> unobstructed. Maybe they should have said that... LOL.

You're probably right about the view. Is it important? No. Seems like grasping at marketing straws to me.

> Yes, that is odd, unless the ride is 12 feet off of the
> ground, with a 200 foot drop. The press release and fact
> sheet were not very clear.

They are marketing it at 200 feet tall. I think it is the water level/creek bed difference I mentioned above. I'm sure we'll get a drop height at some point. I'd love for it to be 200 ft, but I just don't see it.

> Agreed, it is pathetic. A 200-foot tall ride that is under
> 4000 feet is pathetic. For comparison, the Looper is only
> 70 feet high and 2,600 feet long. Considering the length of
> the brake run on Skyrush, the longer lift and drop, the
> rest of the ride is probably as long as the Looper. This
> should have been a 5,000 foot-plus ride.

Agreed. Between the lift, the station, and multiple brake runs at the end, I think we're looking at close to 1000 feet of 'dead' track, making this an approximate 2600 ft ride.

At a 75 mph top speed, you'll be the brakes before you know it. I hope that it's one hell of a 30 seconds...

> I think it's a ridiculous waste of $25 million to have such
> a small coaster. I'm not a fan of parking lot coasters, but
> a good hyper could have been built where Fahrenheit is if
> they ran it out along the back side of the Wildcat and
> back. Fahrenheit is another waste of money and space, but I
> digress...

We disagree on Fahrenheit. I actually think it's the best steel coaster in the park. Stupid set-up, but a very fun ride.

I always pictured a megacoaster looming large in Midway America, running behind the wooden coasters. Then the waterpark killed that idea.

Now we have a too-short megacoaster that was cut short because it's built on a piece of land that required millions of dollars in prep work. The has been some poor park planning in the past 10 years or so.

> Yes, it does look fun, but also looks way to short. And
> only 5 airtime hills??? The ride should have at least 10
> hills.

Yeah, a longer ride would have had more hills.

> The announcement was half-@ssed, considering how much
> effort they put into that stupid game, they didn't put any
> effort into the actual final presentation. I don't see how
> they could have been rushed, the ride was in the planning
> stages since 2010. The fact sheet was missing a lot of info
> and they didn't even have a drawing showing what the
> completed ride actually looks like.

Seriously. The rendering and video look like they were thrown together the morning of the announcement. All that time and money spent on clues and websites (that made no sense) and they come out with lame visuals. I don't get it.

I'm sure some better renderings will be released over the coming weeks. But that will just speak to the point that they were ill-prepared for August 2nd.

> The logo is AMAZING! It will look great on a t-shirt or any
> other souvenir device. That is something they definitely
> got right. The name...well that's another story. It sounds
> so generic and lame. Plus, it doesn't even mean anything in
> relation to the ride. You are not "rushing" to
> the sky, StormRunner is more of a "skyrush" than
> this is, but oh well. I guess I will have to finally accept
> Hershey's lame coaster names and lame coaster layouts and
> stop hoping for better, because it's never going to happen.

Yep. Very nice logo. Terribly uninspired name. But really, how important is the name? For me it's not.

> I will say this though, that I do think Hershey wants to
> maintain it's family park status. And by that I used to
> think that it meant that they wanted big coasters but not
> too big. But let's face it, grandma is not riding the
> coasters with the kids. There is no way my mom would even
> get on the Looper, so she wouldn't care how big or small
> the coaster is. However, what I think they are trying to do
> is keep it a family park in terms of the type of crowds
> that patronize the park.

I understand that Hershey focuses on families, and I think that's great. But that doesn't excuse them from making poor decisions or for settling for these mediocre steel coasters.

Hershey will never have the clientel that Dorney or Great Adventure has, due to those parks' proximity to Philadelphia and New York. Those parks hit those cities hard with marketing. While Hersheypark certainly markets in those areas, they also market south toward DC and west toward Pittsburgh.

I don't think there is a direct correlation between have huge thrill rides and attracting seedy clientel. It has more to do with location, pricing, and marketing.

> I have seen Knott's go from a "family" park to a
> park over-run by unruly teens and thugs like Magic Mountain
> since they started to add in bigger coasters. It's not the
> same and honestly, the crowds have become such a turn-off
> that I can no longer enjoy that park and just stopped
> going. So considering, that, in the end I have to respect
> Hershey's decisions to prevent becoming Dorney or SFGA.

I feel the same way about Knott's as many westerners feel about Hersheypark. If you're more local to a park, you tend to see its flaws more.

I think Knott's is a great park, with a great collection of rides and roller coasters. I'm not familiar with what it used to be. I only know it as a Cedar Fair park, and I loved it.

People who don't get to Hersheypark as often as I do feel the same way about it as I do about Knott's. They don't know it like I do, and they only see what's on the surface, which is a large, clean, good looking park with good rides.

Drachen, though I haven't been to Hersey park in well over a decade, you bring up some very good points. I'm more a thrill freak in the sense that I want my rides long lasting and with more of a punch than a short compact ride.

So I won't deny that if I were to go there 'now' that I won't enjoy it, but it's how I would kinda feel KD would be like had they not gotten Dominator or bought I-305. they have nice 'small' coasters, but none with the length or 'scale' that would impress me.

I believe Hershey also spent the same amount of money on Great Bear as Cedar Point did on Raptor... Very disheartening to see that the park actually has money to spend, but doesn't spend it wisely on better designs and foresight.

I do love how Storm Runner weaves around the park, but the ending falls flat. Great Bear gets off to a great start, but it's ending also falls flat. There should have been another element or two between the in-line twist and corkscrew, instead of a turn and a straight section of track. Plus, the train feels like it has run out of steam by the time it crosses in front of the station, as if brakes aren't even needed. LOL

> The difference is the location, and it kinda' gives you an
> idea of how much it's costing Hersheypark to move a creek,
> excavate, and build this ride where they've chosen to build
> it.

If they had built a straight out-and-back airtime hyper (like they should have) and ran it down the creek toward the golf course, the creek excavation wouldn't have been necessary.

> Decisions to build things where they have in the past
> (cough-waterpark-cough) have added millions to this ride's
> pricetag, and probably played a part in this ride's less
> than inspiring statistics.

> I hope this ride's location adds that much more to the ride
> experience.

I do hope riding over the water in the winged seats will add another dimension to the ride.

> In retrospect, it would have been better to build
> Fahrenheit where Skyrush will sit (as it has a compact
> footprint), and build a long majestic megacoaster starting
> at Fahrenheit's current location.

Totally agree. I think that is my problem with Fahrenheit. A long hyper could have run behind Wildcat, starting at Fahrenheit's current location.

> Oh, and I love how these pictures are
> "copyrighted". Do you think that kid paid for
> that?!

You do not have to pay to have things copyrighted. Everyone has automatic copyrights on anything they create. There are things to purchase for more secure protection, yes, but a basic copyright is in effect as soon as anything worthy is made (including pictures.) If someone is in violation of copyright, and if eventually turns into a lawsuit, the copyright symbol on the work that was copied helps to prove that the defendant knowingly violated copyright laws.

> Oh, and I love how these pictures are
> "copyrighted". Do you think that kid paid for
> that?!

> You do not have to pay to have things copyrighted. Everyone
> has automatic copyrights on anything they create. There are
> things to purchase for more secure protection, yes, but a
> basic copyright is in effect as soon as anything worthy is
> made (including pictures.) If someone is in violation of
> copyright, and if eventually turns into a lawsuit, the
> copyright symbol on the work that was copied helps to prove
> that the defendant knowingly violated copyright laws.

While I don't know if you can truly have something copyrighted without it being registered with a governing body, my point was more along the lines of the sillyness in "copyrighting" such insignificant pictures.

If I went to Hersheypark, I could take the same exact picture of those pieces of track and post them. These guys give the term "credit-whore" a whole new meaning...

> If I went to Hersheypark, I could take the same exact
> picture of those pieces of track and post them. These guys
> give the term "credit-whore" a whole new
> meaning...

Have you met those that steal other people's children to ride kiddie coasters for credit? Far worse. (yes Mike, I'm talking to you!):-)

Many people have an automatic copyright stamp placed on the pics they upload so it goes on everything, those that are significant and those that are not. With all the picture sites that you can download other people's pictures on it is not a bad idea. Would you want someone taking your photograph and selling it? It happens but with that mark on it no one would purchase it if it were printed. Granted, not necessary on all pics but like I said, it's probably an automatic program.

A copyright does not need to be filed with the government (that's a patent or a trademark), not items that are your possession. It would stand up in court if the photo was misused.

Here's more info if you care to read it:
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created
in fixed form."

> Here is how you should present your new $25 million roller
> coaster to the public.

> This is who you should hire to make videos and renderings.

> Regards,

> Underwhelmed Fans

:-0

That made me burst out laughing! Might I also suggest to Hersheypark that "this is what a $25 million coaster looks like."

I can only hope that Cedar Fair is not done dropping in 300-foot gigas in parks across the country. With Supreme Scream and Windseeker, Buena Park apparently has no problem with Knott's building 300-foot tall rides. ;-)

> Seriously, has anyone heard whether SkyRush is expected to
> open with the park or later? Anyone get there for Christmas
> CandyLane? Howzit lookin?

Stole this from the other thread, as to not allow Mike to "hijack" it...

I did make it up to Candy Lane last week. Skyrush is actually looking very good. The first drop looks to be a lot of fun, and is very steep. There is also a small hill that twists the train past 90 degrees at the apex.

It looks to be very... short in length, but we already knew that. But it should deliver a heck of a ride in that short time frame.

> Seriously, has anyone heard whether SkyRush is expected to
> open with the park or later? Anyone get there for Christmas
> CandyLane? Howzit lookin?

> Stole this from the other thread, as to not allow Mike to
> "hijack" it...

> I did make it up to Candy Lane last week. Skyrush is
> actually looking very good. The first drop looks to be a
> lot of fun, and is very steep. There is also a small hill
> that twists the train past 90 degrees at the apex.

> It looks to be very... short in length, but we already knew
> that. But it should deliver a heck of a ride in that short
> time frame.

I will say the ride looks better than I expected and I am eagerly awaiting to see what it looks like once it's completed, not to mention that I am excited to ride it. I am really excited by these pictures.

As much as I am happy that they are building something, and something unique, I do wish it were longer, higher would be ok too, but definitely it should have been longer. Also, does have airtime hills, but not many big hills. It has the first drop, and one other large drop, a medium sized drop and the rest are small hills.

It will be nice to have an airtime machine at Hershey, but it seems like they could have built a better out-and-back version if they just stretched it along the creek, all the way down to Tudor Square and back, which would have eliminated the need for all of the excavation. And looking at what other parks have built for $25 million just makes it worse.

I don't mean to complain so much, but ever since I was a kid, I kept hoping Hershey would get a big coaster, at least just one, and in over 35 years of going to the park it hasn't happened yet. And at this point, it looks like it never will. I guess I should just give up hope by now. ;-)

They still did something sizable for 2012. If Hershey were my home park I would feel a bitter taste because it does look very short...but still, you got a new coaster to, in my opinion, an already great line up!

> They seem to be looking to top this thing off in the near
> future. I found this image on the coaster's fan sites.

> It looks interesting. I don't know how I feel about it. It
> may look better once track and catwalks are installed.

>

The lift structure is very "industrial" looking. Not as sleek as I-305, but I am assuming they needed to build a more complex structure to accommodate the catwalks on both sides of the track for the floorless seats.

I also don't like how over-crowded Comet Hollow looks. It was bad enough when Great Bear added a forest of steel columns, now it looks like one big mess. I hope it looks better in person. I still think this ride could have built in another section of the park instead. I'm also slightly saddened by Comet being trampled by Skyrush.

I really like how Storm Runner interacts with other rides and sections of the park, but Great Bear made the Looper virtually disappear and now the classic view of the Comet is forever ruined.

> The lift structure is very "industrial"
> looking. Not as sleek as I-305, but I am assuming they
> needed to build a more complex structure to accommodate the
> catwalks on both sides of the track for the floorless
> seats.

I believe that is correct. There has to be a catwalk on both sides. It looks very industrial at this point, but it may look totally different once the catwalks/track are mounted.

> I also don't like how over-crowded Comet Hollow looks. It
> was bad enough when Great Bear added a forest of steel
> columns, now it looks like one big mess. I hope it looks
> better in person. I still think this ride could have built
> in another section of the park instead. I'm also slightly
> saddened by Comet being trampled by Skyrush.

> I really like how Storm Runner interacts with other rides
> and sections of the park, but Great Bear made the Looper
> virtually disappear and now the classic view of the Comet
> is forever ruined.

I'm right there with you. Eventhough Great Bear initially damaged the charming Comet Hollow. Skyrush has put in the dagger.

I don't doubt that it will all look nice when it's finished. Hersheypark does a great job with their stations, hardscaping, and landscaping. Again, I'll reserve total judgement until it's completed. Right now, it does look like a big mess.

> Are those the actual colors it's going to be? Sky blue and
> yellow-orange? Those colors do not go together at all and
> actually look horrible IMO.

That last picture is kinda' dark. The track is actually more of a bright golden yellow. It looks pretty sharp in person. If you scroll up a bit, you can see some other pictures in some better lighting.

> Are those the actual colors it's going to be? Sky blue and
> yellow-orange? Those colors do not go together at all and
> actually look horrible IMO.

> That last picture is kinda' dark. The track is actually
> more of a bright golden yellow. It looks pretty sharp in
> person. If you scroll up a bit, you can see some other
> pictures in some better lighting.

> I love that you can see the Looper in it's original glory,
> along with The Bug, and the Skyway...

Although I do love all of the trees at Hersheypark, it's pretty cool to see Looper totally exposed like that. I've heard mention of a possible re-paint this year. I'd love to see the original colors return.

> Although I love the classic amusement park look of Comet
> Hollow, it's too bad they never completed the New England
> fishing village overlay for the area.

I didn't know that was an option. At what point was that under consideration? That would be a neat theme for a park.

> I love that you can see the Looper in it's original glory,
> along with The Bug, and the Skyway...

> Although I do love all of the trees at Hersheypark, it's
> pretty cool to see Looper totally exposed like that. I've
> heard mention of a possible re-paint this year. I'd love to
> see the original colors return.

Better to see the Looper like that, as in the photo, than with Great Bear's supports swallowing it up. The original colors would be great to see, but I think Hershey has said they are not going to repaint the ride after all. It is interesting that the colors of the Looper's trains are the same colors used on Skyrush (light blue, yellow and dark blue).

> Although I love the classic amusement park look of Comet
> Hollow, it's too bad they never completed the New England
> fishing village overlay for the area.

> I didn't know that was an option. At what point was that
> under consideration? That would be a neat theme for a park.

Yes, in the early 70s when they decided to turn the park into a theme park, there were several theme areas that were planned that never saw the light of day, at least at the time. For some reason, they were continuously running out of money, which led to many projects not being built as planned. The Trailblazer, for one, was shortened from its original plan..

Other projects included building a Pennsylvania Coal Mining Town, which they started with Coal Cracker, but never completed until Minetown was "built" in the late 1980s. I say "built" because they didn't build much, and it was sort of half-@ssed.

There were also plans for an Indian Village and Western town, which they started when the Trailblazer and surrounding buildings and rides were added but never completed until the development of what eventually became Pioneer Frontier.

The New England Fishing Village was planned for Comet Hollow. Why they never revisited this concept as they did the others, I'm not sure. I sort of wish they had. I think Comet could use a new station, plus, I think if the area were a compact village with tall Saltbox buildings, it might help disguise the fact that the area is crawling with steel support columns.

Since you are as big a fan of Hershey as I am, I wonder if you've ever seen the early redevelopment map of the then "new" Hersheypark that R. Duell drew up for the park. It clearly shows the various planned theme areas, including the fishing village in Comet Hollow. Also, interestingly enough, there was a mine train placed in the current location of the Looper. Also of note, the monorail is shown as being extended to travel around the park and down to the old pool area across from Tudor Square. There was some sort of amphitheater planned for that spot.

It's incredible to see the master plan and vision that they had for the park at the time. I believe Charles Jacques' book, "Hersheypark" has a copy of this map in the book if you get a chance to check it out, it's pretty fascinating.

For some reason I am a little disoriented when looking at the photos of Skyrush. Is it being built to the left or right of Comet? (talking about the angle when you walk in the park, make a right and Comet is on your right - while facing Looper). It looks like it's on the right to me so is it going to wrap around? Are the flats in the area going to be affected?

> For some reason I am a little disoriented when looking at
> the photos of Skyrush. Is it being built to the left or
> right of Comet? (talking about the angle when you walk in
> the park, make a right and Comet is on your right - while
> facing Looper). It looks like it's on the right to me so is
> it going to wrap around? Are the flats in the area going to
> be affected?

> Just trying to get a mental picture...

> Jen

It may be hard to get a mental picture because the ride sort of wraps around Comet. The station is along Comet's lift hill, Skyrush's lift hill then crosses over the first two drops of Comet, with the bulk of Skyrush's layout located in the pond area to the right of Comet. If you are not overly familiar with the park, that area was previously out of sight for most guests.

The final stretch of Skyrush jumps over Comet and goes through the maintenance area behind the flats in Carroussel Circle, before turning over Comet's station as it returns to its own station.

> It may be hard to get a mental picture because the ride
> sort of wraps around Comet. The station is along Comet's
> lift hill, Skyrush's lift hill then crosses over the first
> two drops of Comet, with the bulk of Skyrush's layout
> located in the pond area to the right of Comet. If you are
> not overly familiar with the park, that area was previously
> out of sight for most guests.

> The final stretch of Skyrush jumps over Comet and goes
> through the maintenance area behind the flats in Carroussel
> Circle, before turning over Comet's station as it returns
> to its own station.

I was looking at "artists renditions" and with your info it seems that Comet hollow will not be changed with the exception of the hill and the tracks running through it next to Comet. So the flats will still be there where they already are, is that correct? Would we be walking under the track when walking through that area or is it "hugging" Comet so it would be on the right?

> I was looking at "artists renditions" and with
> your info it seems that Comet hollow will not be changed
> with the exception of the hill and the tracks running
> through it next to Comet. So the flats will still be there
> where they already are, is that correct? Would we be
> walking under the track when walking through that area or
> is it "hugging" Comet so it would be on the
> right?

> Jen

As you walk down the hill into Comet Hollow, Skyrush makes its last turn over Comet's station, so you wouldn't have to walk under is tracks but the brake run of Skyrush is located in front of Comet's station. That sounds hideous to me, but I will reserve complete judgement until I see how it looks once completed.

The Wave Swinger will still be there, unaffected, but the Tilt-a-Whirl was removed to make way for Skyrush's station.

So as you enter Comet Hollow, you have Great Bear's Immelman on the left and Skyrush's brake run on the right, with Comet's station behind it. Sounds like a tight squeeze to me, not to mention very unsightly.

I'm curious to see how are they going to dress up or change Comet's station to make up for the fact that there is a brake run right in front of it. I can't think of another park in the country that has one ride's tracks blocking the view of another ride's station.

> As you walk down the hill into Comet Hollow, Skyrush makes
> its last turn over Comet's station, so you wouldn't have to
> walk under is tracks but the brake run of Skyrush is
> located in front of Comet's station. That sounds hideous to
> me, but I will reserve complete judgement until I see how
> it looks once completed.

> The Wave Swinger will still be there, unaffected, but the
> Tilt-a-Whirl was removed to make way for Skyrush's station.

> So as you enter Comet Hollow, you have Great Bear's
> Immelman on the left and Skyrush's brake run on the right,
> with Comet's station behind it. Sounds like a tight squeeze
> to me, not to mention very unsightly.

> I'm curious to see how are they going to dress up or change
> Comet's station to make up for the fact that there is a
> brake run right in front of it. I can't think of another
> park in the country that has one ride's tracks blocking the
> view of another ride's station.

Thanks for the perspective. It sounds like Comet is going to be swallowed up by it - I hope not. I really like Comet and think it's quite under-rated by many. I have a thing for the nostalgia of certain rides/areas and Comet/Comet hollow is one of those that just brings me back and makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :~) Like you said, we'll have to wait and see what it looks like after it's finished. What comes to mind is the way Rolling Thunder is virtually non-existent since El Toro was built (not that I'm even remotely comparing Comet's ride to RT's - just the visual) but it used to be the "big" coaster that you saw from the parking lot riding in and now it's practically invisible and has been left to rot.

> Thanks for the perspective. It sounds like Comet is going
> to be swallowed up by it - I hope not. I really like Comet
> and think it's quite under-rated by many. I have a thing
> for the nostalgia of certain rides/areas and Comet/Comet
> hollow is one of those that just brings me back and makes
> me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :~) Like you said, we'll
> have to wait and see what it looks like after it's
> finished. What comes to mind is the way Rolling Thunder is
> virtually non-existent since El Toro was built (not that
> I'm even remotely comparing Comet's ride to RT's - just the
> visual) but it used to be the "big" coaster that
> you saw from the parking lot riding in and now it's
> practically invisible and has been left to rot.

> Jen
>

I agree. Comet is great coaster and I feel it's underrated. It looks so old but it still packs a nice punch.

I really don't know how I feel about the support colors for Skyrush...also, it does look cramped. I guess I'll have to wait until later when I go there to make judgement!

> Drachen, has your opinion of Skyrush changed since you've
> seen the photos of the ride under construction?

Umm... yes and no.

One thing I love about steel coasters is the engineering that goes in to them. And there is a lot of never-before-seen things on this ride. So yes.

The ride is impressive to look at. Word is that is even more impressive in person. The photo I posted gives a good idea of its relative size. So yes.

It really does look like it will be a fun coaster, and it's certainly better looking now that it's being built than it looked in those lame renderings. So yes.

Could they have gone taller? Yes. Should it be longer than 3500+ feet? Certainly. So, those opinions and frustrations have not changed. But I've always been excited to ride it. That excitement has grown as the ride comes to fruition.

It will be fun, but from crest of the lift to first set of breaks, it will be VERY quick. That will still frustrate me, unless the ride totally blows me away.

> I'm sort of mixed as to how it fits in the park. Looking at
> the photo you posted from HP's Facebook page I can't help
> but think this is PA's Cedar Point with four coasters all
> close together.

I agree. This ride already has quite an impact on the Comet and Comet Hollow, and that part of it I still don't like. But, I don't think anyone can honestly look at Skyrush and not be impressed.

> I know it's hard to say without riding first, but from the
> looks of the near-completed ride, what do you think?

I like what I'm seeing. I think Skyrush is turning out to be a stunning ride. It's very curvy, and the color really seems to pop. On top of all of that, it looks to be pretty fun.

It could have/should have been taller and longer. I was hoping for more out of Hersheypark upon their joining the mega-coaster club. But that's doesn't mean that this won't be a great ride.

Intamin fanboys are all wetting themselves over this ride. I'm not to that point. But I am looking forward to riding it in a few months.

This ride looks much better in real life than it did in those lame renderings released during its announcement.

> It's no Leviathan, but I think it looks fun. Actually, this
> ride seems like it might be more intense than Leviathan.
> I'm curious if the airtime hills will deliver or not.

Hard to say on intensity. I actually think that Leviathan will be quite intense. It will obviously have a ton of speed, and it stays pretty close to the ground for a coaster with its size.

I think Skyrush is looking to be a very fun ride. It will be intense and sport more negative G's - but not as often as some seem to think. I count, including the first drop, 5-6 moments of out-of-your seat negative G's.

The train will drop approximately 200 feet and turn into an 80 foot hill, followed by a 60 foot hill. Those two hills have to deliver, don't they?

At the end, there is a twisting airtime hill followed by a traditional bunny hop. Before that there is that twisted diving hill that will throw you toward the sky, but you'll be on your side as you crest it. There is a chunk of track that has yet to be installed. It looks like it could be another turning type of hill. We'll see.

I realize that after I ride it, it could be the best steel coaster I've every ridden. I don't think it will be, but I've never ridden an Intamin ride that I didn't like. I'm sure this will be no exception.

My initial concern with Hersheypark going with Intamin was the OTS restraint. Well, that's not the case with this ride, and I've very happy because of it. I've very excited for these trains, and I think the coaster community will love them.

> There is a frame by frame write up on the ride on the WGAL
> website in which Hershey refers to the ride as not only
> being "family-friendly" but also a
> "mega-lite."

Sounds like a cop-out to me...

Literal translation: "We could have put more into this ride, but we're not good at long term planning, and didn't want to spend the money to build this as big as it should have been."

No doubt that Hershey caters to families. I don't dispute that. But that's not the reason their steel coasters don't measure up, despite what they may say. Cost is.

Look how good and intense their wooden coasters are. Heck, look how intense Storm Runner and Fahrenheit are, and how intense Skyrush will be. These aren't "family rides". They are undersized, under-designed big-boy rides.

Skyrush's trains have arrived/are arriving. They look great - like a Intamin's version of the B&M mega-coaster train, which I think is great. If you read the beginning of this thread, the trains were my main reason for wanting a B&M.

The differences I see are lap restraints that come down from up above instead of in front of you. In addition, the outside seats sit lower than the middle two, likely so that those riders can load without the aid of a raising/lowering floor.

The disadvantage to that is that the person on the farthest seat will have to "climb over" the train to get to their seat. I don't think this thing will load very fast initially.

But I've always been excited to see these trains, and they don't look like they'll disappoint.

Best Intamin restraint EVER!! They may even rival B&M's in they will probably have the same size tolerance as those on I-305. Wonder if they can develop 2 across version of these trains for a certain VERY TALL green coaster in Jersey?

Best Intamin restraint EVER!! They may even rival B&M's in they will probably have the same size tolerance as those on I-305. Wonder if they can develop 2 across version of these trains for a certain VERY TALL green coaster in Jersey?

Best Intamin restraint EVER!! They may even rival B&M's in they will probably have the same size tolerance as those on I-305. Wonder if they can develop 2 across version of these trains for a certain VERY TALL green coaster in Jersey?

Best Intamin restraint EVER!! They may even rival B&M's in they will probably have the same size tolerance as those on I-305. Wonder if they can develop 2 across version of these trains for a certain VERY TALL green coaster in Jersey?

LOVE those seats! I agree that the B & M seating is by far the most comfortable, free-est feeling you can get while still being strapped in. I'm liking this coaster a bit more now.

Jen

I agree. These look to be very wide open, with minimal interference. These trains will have somewhat of a B&M feel, yet you'll be riding a wickedly intense Intamin coaster. It could be the best of both worlds.

On a side note, I'm glad that the trains are here now. I was worried that they would be a cause for delay, somewhat like I-305. It's not that Intimidator's opening was delayed, but the new train design (soft straps) was not ready in time. Skyrush's new train design looks ready to roll.

I can't tell you how relieved I am that these trains don't have the Storm Runner/Fahrenheit/Maverick/Kingda Ka restraint.

Best Intamin restraint EVER!! They may even rival B&M's in they will probably have the same size tolerance as those on I-305. Wonder if they can develop 2 across version of these trains for a certain VERY TALL green coaster in Jersey?

Paul

Or a very tall red coaster in Virginia...

Or a speedy green coaster in Tampa, Florida... :)

drachen said:

Sounds like a cop-out to me...

Literal translation: "We could have put more into this ride, but we're not good at long term planning, and didn't want to spend the money to build this as big as it should have been."

No doubt that Hershey caters to families. I don't dispute that. But that's not the reason their steel coasters don't measure up, despite what they may say. Cost is.

Look how good and intense their wooden coasters are. Heck, look how intense Storm Runner and Fahrenheit are, and how intense Skyrush will be. These aren't "family rides". They are undersized, under-designed big-boy rides.

100% agreed. For that price tag, why would they settle for something 'tame'? Yes, family rides comes first, but with that kind of investment and 'intimidating' look: little kids are likely going to be afraid to get on and enthusiasts like us will be disappointed if the ride under performs. For a coaster like that there shouldn't be a 'middle ground'. It should be more 'hard core' or they may as well have built a smaller coaster and save their money.

I don't know if anyone has seen it, but Hersheypark has posted a new Skyrush animation to their website and on YouTube. Apparently, they had a contest to create a video animation of the ride, one that they should have had from the beginning.

It's pretty good, except that I wish there was also a straightforward POV video.

I don't know if anyone has seen it, but Hersheypark has posted a new Skyrush animation to their website and on YouTube. Apparently, they had a contest to create a video animation of the ride, one that they should have had from the beginning.

It's pretty good, except that I wish there was also a straightforward POV video.

That video gives me a headache...

I still think they should have hired whoever does those same videos for Cedar Fair and Six Flags. Those animations are great, and very realistic.

But, they aren't cheap. Hersheypark decided to put the resources into the marketing game that had been totally irrelevant since the announcement. Just saying...

All told, the real ride looks like a lot of fun. Looking forward to riding it in about two months.